Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I yield myself 1 minute. You know, as I have said here today, everyone is in favor of doing deficit reduction. We want to do it in a way that won't hurt the economy. What I am concerned about is that if we have this large cut and then the States and local governments cut $125 billion at the same time, we will have about $185 billion of cuts, and that is going to cause a decline in economic growth. I mean, it is basic economics. The way you get the deficit down is get people back to work, get people jobs, get them back to work. When the economy is as fragile as it is, it's a question of timing. What the commission members said is don't do it in 2011; do it in 2012 and 2013 and then deal with the entire budget, deal with the entitlements, deal with the taxes, do the whole thing. Do the budget agreement that we all know we have to do, and that's going to take bipartisanship. That's going to take both parties, the President and the Senate and the House.

Mr. DICKS. I yield myself 1 additional minute. We are going to have to get together and work out an agreement and come out together and support it in order to get this through. This is what we did with Bob Dole and Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan. So, this can be done, but we have to have everything on the table. Again, I worry about the 2 week Continuing Resolution. I think that's a bit ambitious. Again, I want to point out to my colleagues that it was the Democratic House and Senate and President who passed the bill, the CR that cut $41 billion from Obama's FY 2011 request, $41 billion. So I want to make sure you all don't forget that. I am going to try to continue to remind you of that fact. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader and former Speaker, the gentlelady from California, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DICKS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member and former chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, Jim Moran.

Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I was just glad to hear the litany of these things that you voted against. Are you still for those Civil War battlefields?

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think this has been a very spirited debate in the best traditions of the House. I want to point out a few facts to again correct the Record. First of all, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act probably brought down the unemployment rate from 12 or 13 percent to 9.5 percent. We would have a 12.5 percent unemployment rate today if it weren't for the American Recovery Act. The only deficit that has been cut around here was the $41 billion that was done by the Democrats and enacted in December and passed to March 4. Now, again, we did not get our work done. Mr. Rogers and I are going to get the work done. But again, gentlemen and ladies, it's the economy. You've got to put people back to work. And if the net impact of what you do, the cuts you make are to throw people out of work, to cause the economy to stumble and stop the recovery and increase unemployment, then the deficit will go up. The only way you get this better is to drive down unemployment, get people working, get businesses producing, get the revenues coming in. That will do it. But what the best economists in this country say is your medicine is not going to cure the patient. It could well harm the patient and cause things to get worse, not better. So that's why some people believe it's a timing issue. And yet, again, I want you to know, we will work together in these next 2 weeks. We've got to get this thing resolved. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I just want to rise in very strong opposition. Being a westerner, I have counties in my district that receive these payments. I think it's justified. I appreciate the fact that the new majority has tried to protect these payments. It's very important in the West.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield? What are the names?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. Let me ask: Do we know how many amendments are left on your side, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DICKS. We understand that you have 50 amendments left, 18 of which are subject to a point of order. One of ours is. We have three and we have one colloquy. You asked us for a colloquy; we got you a colloquy, okay? Now, just in the spirit of cooperation, I hope some of you might think about doing what a lot of our Members have done and decide not to offer your amendments so we can get the hell out of here.

Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Did the gentleman from Arizona say he was going to withdraw his amendment on Marti?

Mr. DICKS. I was just curious to hear that. Thank you.

Mr. DICKS. I'm just going to take a minute here. I want to say to my colleagues here, I completely agree with my friend from Washington State, Mr. Hastings, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, that this violates the law of the land. There is no scientific basis for what is happening here. We have submarines and nuclear power carriers that are offloading waste in Burlington, Washington that go to Idaho that are supposed to go to Yucca Mountain. We made a commitment to the people of Idaho that we would move that waste out of here in the 2025 time frame. Now this project is being stopped without Congress--I was here when we passed the law, and this is being stopped without Congress changing the law. I think it's a travesty, and we're wasting billions of dollars. We should go ahead and finish this project.

Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. To make cuts back to the 2006 level for defense, homeland security, and veterans affairs would do enormous damage to the country. I mean we would be talking about $65, $70 billion in defense, homeland security. And VA would be very substantial as well. I just think of the VA health care benefits that were increased by our Members of Congress working on a bipartisan basis, our former colleague Chet Edwards. We increased health care to take care of the problems associated with the veterans coming back and needing post-traumatic disorder, traumatic brain injury, needing all kinds of help. We have thousands of veterans today who are homeless. So taking these levels back to 2006, in my judgment, would do devastation to this part of the budget. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve my time.

Mr. DICKS. I would yield to the gentleman just to say we had a different description of your amendment. I regret that there were inaccuracies. But even for the rest of the government, I think the amendment going back to 2006 is too severe. And as the chairman would say, it is an across-the-board cut, give all the authority to OMB. I am with Hal Rogers, it's not a good idea. Let's defeat the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.